Kaine’s Transportation Package: Something Old, Something New

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has unveiled his package of proposed transportation/land use reforms, reprising some familiar themes but adding some new ones. (See his press release here.) Among the new initiatives:

  • Subdivision streets. One proposal, bearing similarities to a bill introduced by the House of Delegates, would tighten criteria for accepting subdivision streets into the state highway system. Provisions would ensure that roads are well built and, where appropriate, properly integrated with adjacent development before the state accepts the responsibility to maintain them.
  • Corridor management. A second proposal would protect existing roads from unnecessary curb cuts and turning movements that disrupt traffic flows. (For details on Kaine administration thinking, see our past post, “Corroding Corridors.”)

Transportation accountability. The Governor also plugged the theme of “transportation accountability,” renewing his call to “lock up” the Transportation Trust Fund. Previous legislatures have raided the trust fund to balance the budget, and in 2005 his gubernatorial campaign, Kaine vowed not to raise transportation taxes until there were constitutional guarantees protecting any new monies raised for transportation. However, the General Assembly failed to enact a measure. Said Kaine:

Every transportation revenue bill I introduced has contained an enactment clause stating that the measure will expire if the money is every used for any purpose other than transportation. However, it is time for the House of Delegates and State Senate to reconcile their differing versions of this bill so we can pass a constitutional amendment locking up the Transportation Trust Fund.

Kaine also alluded to his newly appointed Transportation Accountability Commission, which is charged with developing performance standards to evaluate the on-going performance of Virginia’s transportation agencies and professionals.

The Kaine transportation/land use package also contains familiar ideas that didn’t survive last year’s General Assembly sessions.

  • Growth controls. One proposal would give local governments the power to deny rezoning requests where the transportation capacity is lacking to support the projected increase in traffic. This is the spinster sister of legislation that did pass last year, providing for VDOT to conduct comprehensive traffic impact studies of major rezoning projects.
  • Tax increases. The Kaine $850 million transportation revenue package is “closely related” to last year’s package, including: (a) dedicating existing auto insurance premium taxes to transportation, (b) raising the sales tax on vehicles from 3 percent to 5 percent, (c) imposing an abuser fee on reckless drivers, (d) increasing the vehicle registration fee by $30 a year, and (e) increaes the registration fee for heavy trucks.

For details on the tax package, click here.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

4 responses to “Kaine’s Transportation Package: Something Old, Something New”

  1. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    After looking at the tax/revenue sheet…. it appears to me to boil down to establishing a precedent of dedicating 1/2 of this years and future revenues to one-time projects.

    A substantial amount goes to keep up with the escalating maintenance and FRAN debt costs except starting with FY10, the maintenance costs level off.

    So.. $500 million of the “new” revenue is for maintenance/old debt.

    The only money after this year for “new” projects is if there is a surplus and 1/2 of that is used.

    Perhaps a knowledgeable “lurker” of BR can better explain this further ..and/or correct mis impressions…

    Methinks.. those who were expecting big new money for VDOT … are not going to be happy when they see this.

    … and that’s before the HD guys get their knives out…..

  2. Reid Greenmun Avatar
    Reid Greenmun

    The pro-“growth” lobbyists have already headed off to Richmond to stop and plan that get’s in their “clienbts” path – a path of full speed ahead for endless development.

    Sniff! Can you smell the money being burned up to stop “growth control”???

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar

    I don’t disagree with you, Reid, but growth control is also burning money.

    Until we are smart enough to really understand the costs on both sides, then complaining about the money being spent by one side or excess costs caused by the other side really means nothing as far as the general welfare is concerned.

    All we can say is that if they feel they are being damaged enough to spend that kind of money, then maybe they have a legitimate beef. I don;t think we can make policy just based on “the rapacious developer argument.”

    We need to do better than that.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray – It’s all about balance. It seems that, in Fauquier County, new development bears heavy and unfair burdens. But in Fairfax County, the average resident’s income and quality of life are subject to constant assault by development. Taxpayers even subsidize zoning fees for companies such as Macerich and West Group to the tune of more than $43 M since fiscal 2003. Meanwhile real estate taxes are up by 85%+ and Longfellow Middle School has no running hot water.

    We pay these companies’ advertising budgets through the Economic Development Authority. In terms of cash proffers for fiscal 2006, Fairfax County (population one million plus) obtained around $8 M, which sounds semi-credible. Until that is one looks at the $2 M in cash proffers obtained by the City of Manassas Park (population 11,600). At the same time, our two-bit leadership, including Gerry Connolly and Dana Kaufmann, are clamoring for higher taxes for transporation to help the county grow. A pox on them!

    As I’ve said on many occasions, let’s have some balance. A combination of impact fees and new tax revenues generated by development ought to pay, over time, for the infrastructure necessary to support the larger community. At at bare minimum, taxpayers should stop subsidizing development. Can’t Macerich and West Group at least pay full-cost zoning fees and their own advertising bills? But they would fight that tooth and nail.

    In the absence of good faith on the other side, my feeling is “stick to ’em.”

Leave a Reply